A lithographic projection apparatus can be used, for example, in the manufacture of integrated circuits (ICs). In such a case, a mask may contain a circuit pattern corresponding to an individual layer of the IC (“design layout”), and this circuit pattern can be transferred onto a target portion (e.g. comprising one or more dies) on a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer) that has been coated with a layer of radiation-sensitive material (“resist”), by methods such as irradiating the target portion through the circuit pattern on the mask. In general, a single substrate contains a plurality of adjacent target portions to which the circuit pattern is transferred successively by the lithographic projection apparatus, one target portion at a time. In one type of lithographic projection apparatuses, the circuit pattern on the entire mask is transferred onto one target portion in one go; such an apparatus is commonly referred to as a wafer stepper. In an alternative apparatus, commonly referred to as a step-and-scan apparatus, a projection beam scans over the mask in a given reference direction (the “scanning” direction) while synchronously moving the substrate parallel or anti-parallel to this reference direction. Different portions of the circuit pattern on the mask are transferred to one target portion progressively. Since, in general, the lithographic projection apparatus will have a magnification factor M (generally <1), the speed F at which the substrate is moved will be a factor M times that at which the projection beam scans the mask. More information with regard to lithographic devices as described herein can be gleaned, for example, from U.S. Pat. No. 6,046,792, incorporated herein by reference.
Prior to transferring the circuit pattern from the mask to the substrate, the substrate may undergo various procedures, such as priming, resist coating and a soft bake. After exposure, the substrate may be subjected to other procedures, such as a post-exposure bake (PEB), development, a hard bake and measurement/inspection of the transferred circuit pattern. This array of procedures is used as a basis to make an individual layer of a device, e.g., an IC. The substrate may then undergo various processes such as etching, ion-implantation (doping), metallization, oxidation, chemo-mechanical polishing, etc., all intended to finish off the individual layer of the device. If several layers are required in the device, then the whole procedure, or a variant thereof, will have to be repeated for each layer. Eventually, a device will be present in each target portion on the substrate. These devices are then separated from one another by a technique such as dicing or sawing, whence the individual devices can be mounted on a carrier, connected to pins, etc.
As noted, microlithography is a central step in the manufacturing of ICs, where patterns formed on substrates define functional elements of the ICs, such as microprocessors, memory chips etc. Similar lithographic techniques are also used in the formation of flat panel displays, micro-electro mechanical systems (MEMS) and other devices.
As semiconductor manufacturing processes continue to advance, the dimensions of functional elements have continually been reduced while the amount of functional elements, such as transistors, per device has been steadily increasing over decades, following a trend commonly referred to as “Moore's law”. At the current state of technology, layers of devices are manufactured using lithographic projection apparatuses that project a design layout onto a substrate using illumination from a deep-ultraviolet illumination source, creating individual functional elements having dimensions well below 100 nm, i.e. less than half the wavelength of the light from the illumination source.
This process in which features with dimensions smaller than the classical resolution limit of a lithographic projection apparatus are printed, is commonly known as low-k1 lithography, according to the resolution formula CD=k1×λ/NA, where λ is the wavelength of radiation employed (currently in most cases 248 nm or 193 nm), NA is the numerical aperture of projection optics in the lithographic projection apparatus, CD is the “critical dimension”—generally the smallest feature size printed—and k1 is an empirical resolution factor. In general, the smaller k1 the more difficult it becomes to reproduce a pattern on the wafer that resembles the shape and dimensions planned by a circuit designer in order to achieve particular electrical functionality and performance. To overcome these difficulties, sophisticated fine-tuning steps are applied to the lithographic projection apparatus as well as to the design layout. These include, for example, but not limited to, optimization of NA and optical coherence settings, customized illumination schemes, use of phase shifting masks, optical proximity correction (OPC, sometimes also referred to as “optical and process correction”) in the design layout, or other methods generally defined as “resolution enhancement techniques” (RET).
As one important example, OPC addresses the fact that the final size and placement of an image of the design layout projected on the substrate will not be identical to, or simply depend only on the size and placement of the design layout on the mask. It is noted that the terms “mask” and “reticle” are utilized interchangeably herein. Also, person skilled in the art will recognize that, especially in the context of lithography simulation/optimization, the term “mask” and “design layout” can be used interchangeably, as in lithography simulation/optimization, a physical mask is not necessarily used but a design layout can be used to represent a physical mask. For the small feature sizes and high feature densities present on some design layout, the position of a particular edge of a given feature will be influenced to a certain extent by the presence or absence of other adjacent features. These proximity effects arise from minute amounts of light coupled from one feature to another and/or non-geometrical optical effects such as diffraction and interference. Similarly, proximity effects may arise from diffusion and other chemical effects during post-exposure bake (PEB), resist development, and etching that generally follow lithography.
In order to ensure that the projected image of the design layout is in accordance with requirements of a given target circuit design, proximity effects need to be predicted and compensated for, using sophisticated numerical models, corrections or pre-distortions of the design layout. The article “Full-Chip Lithography Simulation and Design Analysis—How OPC Is Changing IC Design”, C. Spence, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5751, pp 1-14 (2005) provides an overview of current “model-based” optical proximity correction processes. In a typical high-end design almost every feature of the design layout requires some modification in order to achieve high fidelity of the projected image to the target design. These modifications may include shifting or biasing of edge positions or line widths as well as application of “assist” features that are intended to assist projection of other features.
Application of model-based OPC to a target design requires good process models and considerable computational resources, given the many millions of features typically present in a chip design. However, applying OPC is generally not an “exact science”, but an empirical, iterative process that does not always compensate for all possible proximity effect. Therefore, effect of OPC, e.g., design layouts after application of OPC and any other RET, need to be verified by design inspection, i.e. intensive full-chip simulation using calibrated numerical process models, in order to minimize the possibility of design flaws being built into the manufacturing of a mask. This is driven by the enormous cost of making high-end masks, which run in the multi-million dollar range, as well as by the impact on turn-around time by reworking or repairing actual masks once they have been manufactured.
Both OPC and full-chip RET verification may be based on numerical modeling systems and methods as described, for example in, U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,758 and an article titled “Optimized Hardware and Software For Fast, Full Chip Simulation”, by Y. Cao et al., Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5754, 405 (2005).
In addition to optimization to design layouts or masks (e.g., OPC), the illumination source can also optimized, either jointly with mask optimization or separately, in an effort to improve the overall lithography fidelity. Since the 1990s, many off-axis illumination sources, such as annular, quadrupole, and dipole, have been introduced, and have provided more freedom for OPC design, thereby improving the imaging results, As is known, off-axis illumination is a proven way to resolve fine structures (i.e., target features) contained in the mask. However, when compared to a traditional illumination source, an off-axis illumination source usually provides less light intensity for the aerial image (AI). Thus, it becomes necessary to attempt to optimize the illumination source to achieve the optimal balance between finer resolution and reduced light intensity. The terms “illumination source” and “source” are used interchangeably in this document.
Numerous illumination source optimization approaches can be found, for example, in an article by Rosenbluth et al., titled “Optimum Mask and Source Patterns to Print A Given Shape”, Journal of Microlithography, Microfabrication, Microsystems 1(1), pp. 13-20, (2002). The source is partitioned into several regions, each of which corresponds to a certain region of the pupil spectrum. Then, the source distribution is assumed to be uniform in each source region and the brightness of each region is optimized for process window. However, such an assumption that the source distribution is uniform in each source region is not always valid, and as a result the effectiveness of this approach suffers. In another example set forth in an article by Granik, titled “Source Optimization for Image Fidelity and Throughput”, Journal of Microlithography, Microfabrication, Microsystems 3(4), pp. 509-522, (2004), several existing source optimization approaches are overviewed and a method based on illuminator pixels is proposed that converts the source optimization problem into a series of non-negative least square optimizations. Though these methods have demonstrated some successes, they typically require multiple complicated iterations to converge. In addition, it may be difficult to determine the appropriate/optimal values for some extra parameters, such as y in Granik's method, which dictates the trade-off between optimizing the source for wafer image fidelity and the smoothness requirement of the source.
For low k1 photolithography, optimization of both the source and mask is very useful to ensure a viable process window for projection of critical circuit patterns. Some algorithms (e.g. Socha et. al. Proc. SPIE vol. 5853, 2005, p. 180) discretize illumination into independent source points and mask into diffraction orders in the spatial frequency domain, and separately formulate a cost function (which is defined as a function of selected design variables) based on process window metrics such as exposure latitude which could be predicted by optical imaging models from source point intensities and mask diffraction orders. The term “design variables” as used herein means a set of parameters of a lithographic projection apparatus, for example, parameters a user of the lithographic projection apparatus can adjust. It should be appreciated that any characteristics of a lithographic projection apparatus, including those of the source, the mask, the projection optics, can be among the design variables in the optimization. The cost function is often a non-linear function of the design variables. Then standard optimization techniques are used to minimize the cost function.
One problem with these algorithms that formulate a cost function is that they require a large number of full forward optical imaging model simulations before convergence on both optimal source and mask is reached. Optimizing the lithographic projection apparatus using a clip (which is defined as a portion of a design layout with calibration features that can be used for optimization of the lithographic projection apparatus, as elaborated further in the detailed description section) of medium complexity can take weeks or even months on latest standard PC hardware, which is generally considered impractical. A practical optimization process generally costs less than about 24 hours.
Relatedly, the delay of EUV lithography and the pressure of ever decreasing design rules have driven semiconductor chipmakers to move deeper into the low k1 lithography era with existing 193 nm ArF lithography. Lithography towards lower k1 puts heavy demands on RET, exposure tools, and the need for litho-friendly design. The 1.35 ArF hyper numerical apertures (NA) exposure tool will be the exposure tool for chip manufactures to use in the next two years. To ensure that circuit design can be produced on to the substrate with workable process window; source-mask optimization (SMO) is becoming an important RET that is required for 2×nm node.
A source and mask (design layout) optimization method and system that allow for simultaneous optimization of the source and mask using a cost function without constraints and within a practicable amount of time is described in a commonly assigned International Patent Application No. PCT/US2009/065359, filed on Nov. 20, 2009, and published as WO2010/059954, titled “Fast Freeform Source and Mask Co-Optimization Method”, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
New development in hardware and software of lithographic projection apparatuses provides more flexibility by making projection optics therein adjustable. The term “projection optics” as used herein should be broadly interpreted as encompassing various types of optical systems, including refractive optics, reflective optics, apertures and catadioptric optics, for example. The term “projection optics” may also include components operating according to any of these design types for directing, shaping or controlling the projection beam of radiation, collectively or singularly. The term “projection optics” may include any optical component in the lithographic projection apparatus, no matter where the optical component is located on an optical path of the lithographic projection apparatus. Projection optics can include optical components for shaping, adjusting and/or projecting light from the source before the light passes the mask, and/or optical components for shaping, adjusting and/or projecting the light after the light passes the mask. The projection optics generally exclude the source and the mask.
For example, adjustable parameters (“knobs”) of the projection optics make it possible to shape light in more degrees of freedom (e.g., wavefront shape, intensity distribution, etc.) and/or to accommodate a wider range of conditions of the source and the mask (namely to provide a larger process window (PW)), than what is offered by the existing SMO techniques.
However, optimizing these additional knobs entails very high computation cost. Therefore, methods to simplify and accelerate optimization of these knobs related to the projection optics jointly with knobs associated with the source and mask are desirable.
Therefore what is needed is a computationally-efficient comprehensive optimization method for characterizing a lithographic process based on which the setting of a lithographic apparatus (including setting of a projection optics system) is decided and a mask is designed.
An additional benefit of having more adjustable parameters to pre-optimize a lithographic projection apparatus is that it enables a user to tune the behavior of one lithographic projection apparatus in order to match the behavior of another reference lithographic projection apparatus or a desired preset scanner behavior based on a simulation model (e.g., the behavior of a virtual scanner). Note that the term “scanner” is used broadly in this application to describe scanning-type or any other type of lithographic projection apparatus. In co-pending co-owned patent application, titled, “Methods and System for Model-Based Generic Matching and Tuning,” US publication no. 2010/0146475 to Cao et al., behavior matching/tuning has been discussed, but the adjustment parameters (“knobs”) were mainly linear parameters, such as illumination source intensity parameters.
What is needed is a more comprehensive behavior matching/tuning methodology that integrates non-linear multi-variable optimization involving characteristics of illumination source and projection optics.